Civil Case (Be’er Sheva) 7137-09-18 Netanel Attias v. Alon Goren - part 37

With regard to the question of the transfer of the venue of Mualem's knowledge of the sums that were actually paid, in Ms. Shimoni Cohen's interrogation, she claimed, "It is possible that he did not know.  Yes, it is possible that he did not know" (ibid., p.  1394, paras.  20-21; See also, ibid., p.  1347, paras.  6-17; p.  1390, s.  9-13).  Mr. Elia Shimoni claimed in his testimony, "I can't say that Mualem saw the counting" (p.  1473, paras.  24-25), and then added, "I can't say that he knew for sure, but I can say with a high probability, very likely, I don't know if it was legal, very likely that he knew because he saw people coming in..." (ibid., p.  1474, s.  25 to p.  1475, s.  3).  In this context, I would like to clarify that I am convinced that Mualem did not know that the sums specified in the contracts did not correspond to the sums that the plaintiffs were actually required to pay.  Mrs. Shimoni did not know whether the relocation of the venue from Mu'alem knew the amount they actually paid, and Mr. Shimoni, for his part, sought to rely on irrelevant circumstantial evidence, according to which since the transfer of the venue from Mu'alem "saw that people were entering", this indicates that he knew about the sums (see also the convoluted and incoherent testimony of the relocation of the venue of a hearing from Mu'alem, at p.  414, s.  15 to p.  419, s.  8).  This is an evasive version on the part of Mr. Shimoni, who is not trustworthy of me.  The main thing will be found in the fact that none of the plaintiffs 3-7 positively claimed that he had informed Mualem that the amount recorded in the contract was different from the amount he was required to pay (see, for example, the confession of the transfer of the venue of the Cohen hearing at p.  419, question 3).  In doing so, the plaintiffs learned about themselves that they deliberately concealed from Mualem the surprising and illegal demand that was made to them, while they were still in his office, to record a lower sum in the contracts.  This is only because they thought that if they did so, the transfer of a place of discussion would refuse to allow them to sign the contracts.  To complete the matter, it should be said that the plaintiffs attached an affidavit on behalf of Mr. Yoram Buchnik, in which Mr. Buchnik explicitly admitted that "the transfer of the place of hearing was made by Mualem and did not know the difference between the price in the contract and the actual price paid" (paragraph 4 of his affidavit).